Last year, Milo Yiannapolous, the openly gay political commentator and public speaker from England whose fruity take on neo-neoconservatism was apparently enough to get purportedly “anti-fascist” college leftist SJWs to set their own colleges on fire to prevent him from simply giving a guest lecture – had his bajillion dollar book deal reneged upon because he made some comments back in the day that the MSM deemed pro-pedophile.
Of course, the very same media refused to publicly crucify Lena Dunham after she jocularly recounted shoving peebles into her little sister’s hoo-ha in her own autobiography. Or try to destroy the livelihood of George Takei, a Taco Bell spokes-homo who once described his own sexual assault as a child as, among other things, “delicious.” OR try to blackball Roman Polanski forever for all time, even though he literally raped a child.
Don’t worry, there are plenty more examples of Hollywood hypocrisy we’re gonna’ get to in just a bit. But let’s just call this pederast-shaming of Milo what it really is – a McCarthyist attack on someone who doesn’t fall hook, line and sinker for the globalist, multiculturalist, hyper-leftist party line everyone of any considerable power in the media and entertainment is supposed to gleefully support and sacrifice themselves for.
The progressivists act like they own the homosexual vote. Well, Milo is about as gay as Elton John’s butthole covered in glitter, and what do you know, he wholeheartedly rejects the globalist-liberal platform altogether. The same way liberals viciously – some say, even prejudicially – attack blacks and women and Hispanics and anybody else they think “owes” them their undying allegiance as involuntary protector, they REALLY had to make an example out of this Milo kiwi. So, of course, they trudge up some old-ass comments about his experiences as a homosexual minor, and the next day – almost as if by some sort of supernatural voodoo – every leftist site in the world was acting plumb aghast that this conservative firebrand maybe-quite-possibly-sorta condoned man-on-child loving. And just like good old Joe and the rest of his commie hatin’ kin, the neo-libs decided to hurt Milo where it hurts the most – his purse – and cost him a VERY lucrative publishing deal. You don’t support us financially, the liberal-industrial complex demonstrated, and we’ll cost you financially.
Interestingly enough, the blowback came just hours after Milo appeared on professional asshole Bill Maher’s HBO program, which, feasibly, gave Milo his largest U.S. audience to date. Indeed, Maher – showing exactly the kind of smarmy, slimy little fuck he is – turned around and started showboating to the media about how his platform was what exposed Milo and got him “de-personed.” Strangely, few in the media seemed to give much of any fucks about some of the suspiciously pro-pedo comments Maher had made in the past – nor did they bring up his 2007 interview with Playboy, in which he said “with Debra Lafave screwing her 14-year-old student, the only crime is that we didn’t get it on videotape.”
But of course, Maher – not unlike literal NAMBLA member Allen Ginsberg – isn’t against the progressivism-uber-alles agenda, either. Just as long as you remember to pay proper tributes to the Donkey Mafia and do as much as you can to promote their agenda and fuck over anybody who disagrees with them, though, the public outreach arm of the Democratic Party known as “the media” will let you get away with pretty much anything, including serial sexual abuse and torture of children.
No, that’s not hyperbole on my part. The Clintons racked up a ton of air miles on the private plane of one Jeffrey Epstein – a billionaire, big-time Democrat Party financier, who also happens to be a convicted sex offender long, long believed to have been the mastermind of a massive child prostitution ring. No, this is not conspiracy chatter – it’s all well documented stuff.
So let me repeat that for you: Epstein was arrested in a 2005 raid, with authorities finding C.P. and actual torture devices all over his mansion. Yet despite the fact the evil Israeli intel spy is a Level 3 sex offender, not only did they continue to accept cash from him, Billy Clinton has been confirmed to have been a passenger on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” on more than two dozen occasions.
Talk about audacity – the liberal Wehrmacht tearing some Limey cocksucker (hey, that’s how he self-identifies, you know) to shreds for possibly being apologetic about pedophilia, when the very party itself is being fiscally keep afloat by an ACTUAL child rapist.
Naturally, when the whole #PizzaGate theory ran amuck, the MSM had to play damage control (if not Democrat Party Defense Force) by labeling every singe mentioning of the conspiracy theory as either “fake news” or “fake news-inspired.” The media was – and remains – absolutely aghast at the idea that ANYBODY could believe a big money political donor with ties to D.C. heavy hitters could in any way shape or form be a pivotal player in some horrific child slavery ring … you know, despite the fact that Jeffery Epstein already has.
The narrative there is pretty clear. Sure, the idea of a 70,000-person-strong international child slavery ring existing in 30 countries is believable, and so is the idea of an interstate pedo network trafficking minors across the nation, with 500 trafficking arrests in California alone … this year. And yes, it is entirely possible for a Pakistani sex ring to shop 1,400 underage victims all across the British Isles uninterrupted for 15 years (thanks in no small part to local police trying to cover up the crimes.) And it’s wholly believable that British state television could cover up the serial abuse of children for decades and decades, and that the goddamn U.N. keeps covering up heinous sex abuse incidents, even when troops are sexually torturing victims as young as just seven-years-old. And of course, we ALL know these pesky Catholics have spent millions trying to sweep up their decades.. hell, maybe even centuries of child abuse under the proverbial rug. But that a pizza place could be used as a front for lobbyist pedophiles in Washington? THAT’S UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS, AND YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED FOR EVEN ENTERTAINING THE IDEA!
But the liberal academia-media-entertainment complex does seem awfully shaky when it comes to the touchy issue of child abuse, don’t it? After all, they really couldn’t harp on Milo too much, seeing how the Democratic base has long had an … uh, interesting … track record on pederasty.
For example, when was the last time you heard about all that rampant sexual abuse going on in the orthodox Jewish community? Don’t you protectionist liberals care that as many as HALF of all Hassidic boys in Brooklyn are being sexually abused right now? Along those same lines, why isn’t the left freaking the fuck out over the scores of rabbis decrying orthodox Jewish sects as “child rape assembly lines” in Israel? Why didn’t Democrats get all huffy and clamor for new federal legislation when an infant child died from herpes after a grotesque ritual circumcision in New York? Surely, there has to be some logical explanation for why liberals don’t seem to give a shit when Jewish parents in Brooklyn are too afraid to send their children to school out of sexual abuse fears, or when a rabbi gets popped for raping a 14-year-old at a high school in Jerusalem, right?
Well, I’m guessing it’s for the same reason we never hear about the children being raped in mosques in Tampa, molested in mosques in Queens or serially abused in mosques in Chicago, which I’m supposing is also the same reason we don’t hear about the gay porn stars that infect 14-year-old boys with AIDS or the homosexual Hungarians convicted of running sex slave rings and especially not the teenage Afghani immigrants who film the gang rapes of underage male victims in Sweden (but still don’t get deported for it.)
For liberals/globalists/multiculturalists/progressivists, it’s an abomination when whites/conservatives/Christians/straight men do unspeakably gross things to children, because they’re already their sworn political enemy. However, to address the rampant child sexual abuse going on in, say, the black or Hispanic community, means likewise demonizing one of your most important niche voting blocs. And because some of your grand ideological lions – why, hello there, The eXile founder Mark Ames and Queer Studies pioneer Walter Lee Williams! – dip into the teens more often than the temperature in Alaska, perhaps you can see the strategic significance of refraining from riding the anti-pedo hobby horse too hard.
And nowhere is the liberal voting bloc’s uneasy alliance with pederasts more apparent than in the glitzy, glamorous nation-state known as La La Land.
Why don’t the progressivists ever go after liberal Hollywood icons like Woody Allen and Bryan Singer for their looooong track record of alleged (well, really, more like “yet-to-be-uncovered”) pedo crimes? How come none of the Democrat Party cheerleaders ever take the accusations of serially abused child actors like Todd Bridges, Corey Feldman and Corey Haim seriously, and why haven’t they demanded a full congressional investigation into the more than substantiated claims of organized child abuse in Hollywood’s inner circle?
Wasn’t talent manager Martin Weiss arrested for raping a pre-teen boy over 30 times over a three-year time frame, and wasn’t casting agent Jason James Murphy charged for the sexual molestation of an 8-year-old boy in 1996, only to be rehired by Hollywood to work on movies like The Bad News Bears, School of Rock and Super 8?
Didn’t manager Bob Villard cop a plea deal in 2005 for committing lewd acts on a 13-year-old.. this, after getting a slap on the wrist for possessing thousands of C.P. images in his home, and being indicted on federal child pornography charges 15 years before that?
And what about Disney composer Fernando Rivas, who was charged with filming himself sexually abusing a four-year-old and posting it on the Internet? Or what about actor Brian Peck, who got himself a Disney gig on the program The Suite Life of Zack & Cody just two years after being charged with child molestation?
And of course, who could ever forget the case of Victor Salva, he of Clownhouse fame? Well, he went to jail for videotaping himself performing a sex act on a 12-year-old, and once his absurdly reduced sentence was up, Disney automatically gave him a job producing 1995’s Powder.
Oh, Hollywood values – where saying black people aren’t buoyant costs you your livelihood, but you can safely resume your career the very moment you get out of the clink for raping children. Yeah, I have no idea why Middle America fosters such a disdain and distaste for the entertainment industry, either.
But since the Hollywood machinery is so instrumental in promoting the liberal cause (not to mention instrumental in funding its great mission), of course the Dems aren’t going to say or do much of anything about the rampant, unchecked serial abuse of children in the film industry. In fact, they’ve actually doubled down on it, with many leftist-leaning rags and e-pubs actually attempting to advocate on the behalf of pedos.
A year later, Salon published a piece of pedo apologia titled “I’m A Pedophile, But Not A Monster,” in which author Todd Nickerson demanded readers refrain from judging him just because he gets hard watching Nickelodeon. Interestingly, the same publication yanked the story from their servers right after the shit hit the fan about Milo and his (alleged?) fondness for the kid diddlin’. Talk about cognitive dissonance in action.
And then, there’s Vice, which did an entire series trying to play public relations specialists for NAMBLA, complete with a profile on the aforementioned Todd Nickerson (which tries to posit HIM as the victim of cultural oppression) and a hit piece trying to smear the good name of Creep Catchers, an Internet vigilante group that seeks to expose abusers of children (whom trisexual walking diversity poster and author Manisha Krishnan tries to re-label as, you guessed it, “the disabled.”)
And let’s not discount The Huffington Post’s “valiant” efforts to destigmatize pedophilia in 2013. And no, that’s not me being hyperbolic – the first sentence of this Hunter Stuart child-molester apologia is actually “in a move toward destigmatizing pedophilia, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in its updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders distinguishes between pedophiles who desire sex with children and those who act on those desires.”
Of course, Stuart’s article is patently false (despite his cheery proclamations, the APA still considers pedophilia, in all its incarnations, a severe mental disorder and all actionable forms of pedophilia both “wrong” and “criminal acts”,) but it nonetheless serves a greater social purpose. The same way the engines of modernity slowly but surely changed Middle Americans’ perspectives on homosexuality and transexuality, the media is undoubtedly beginning that slow crawl towards normalizing pedos.
No longer are we supposed to view child molesters as victimizers, but rather, the victims of intangible mental defects and antediluvian social attitudes towards human sexuality. Naturally, the special interests Wehrmacht will pressure medical organizations into eliminating that first part about mental disorders altogether (as the gay lobby did in the 1970s and the trans-activists are attempting to do today) so that a good 15 or 20 years down the road, we can simply smear anybody who thinks adult-on-child buggery is unnatural, depraved or criminal as hate-filled pedophilephobes whose opinions have no merit in our post-science social utopia.
Why else is the media giving biologically-proven dirt-bag Todd Nickerson a soapbox? It’s almost like they’re trying to transform this one-armed, Bam Bam Bigelow foreheaded sex criminal into some sort of post-post-post-modern sexual rights martyr. They’re actually using terms he coined like “virtuous pedophiles” to describe non-offending (i.e., not yet caught in the act) pedophiles, and regurgitating his party line about child-desiring being a legitimate sexual orientation, no different than being gay, straight or bi, as if it had any sort of hard biological science underpinning.
Why else is a major media conglomerate with ties to Time Warner shitting out garbage like “A Child Rape Victim on Why Society Should Be More Empathetic to Pedophiles?” Why else is a prime time “sitcom” on Fox doing jokes about transgendered six-year-olds wearing S&M gear? Why does Hollywood expect us to guffaw and hee-haw when Amy Schumer is revealed to be having a sexual tryst with an underage boy in Trainwreck? Why else is Lena Dunham getting paid millions of dollars to whimsically reflect on sexually abusing her sister in her own autobiography, dropping lines like “anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl, I was trying,” as if the act of child rape is intrinsically humorous? And why else are leaders of hyper-liberal, pro-socialist organizations proudly stating they’re “advocating for the early managed sexualization of children so as to prevent the formation of any earlier fascist traits?“
Simply put – they’re using their power as the media, entertainment and special interests industrial complex to reshape – and ultimately, eliminate and replace – our traditional societal values and mores. The whole sexual liberation movement itself remains an incomplete, morality-redefining continuum. What started with “free love” in the 1960s – i.e., the elimination of procreative sex as a vital societal construct – morphed into radical feminism in the 1970s – i.e., the elimination of marriage and even the family as a vital societal construct – which ultimately turned into the hardcore gay rights movement of the 1980s – i.e, the elimination of heterosexuality as a vital societal construct. The great big sexual liberation jihad of today, of course, is transsexuality, which essentially constitutes the elimination of sexuality itself as a vital societal construct. In post-trans-acceptance America, human sexuality can mean virtually anything and can change at anytime. There are no sexual concretes, which means even defining what constitutes sexual activity anymore becomes a bit of a puzzle.
And if human sex has no tangible, defining features, that means human sexuality, by default, has no tangible, defining features … which pretty much makes all forms of weirdo sexual perversion culturally permissible, just as long as the sexual partners mutually agree to whatever batshit insane things they want to do with each other’s buttholes.
In a way, perhaps the whole transsexual debate is but a pro-pedophilia Trojan horse. After all, if a six-year-old child has the legal ability to agree to hormone treatments and genital amputation, why wouldn’t they likewise have the same legal standing to determine what others can willingly do to their bodies? Yeah, I hate using the old “slippery slope” chestnut as much as the next guy, but the last 60 years of sexual liberation theology has more or less systematically knocked down every former sexual perversion taboo our culture frowned upon. Indeed, the last form of non-culturally-protected sexual deviancy (not counting rape and voyeurism, but give those some time, as well) out there is what some people (a.k.a., pedophile enablers) refer to as inter-generational sex. As long as the people involved in the act all give consent, who cares if one of them is 35 and the other is 12, right? Hell, there’s already people out there claiming to be “trans-aged.” Well, shit – if we are allowed to pick our own gender, then why not let people arbitrarily select their own “age,” as well? Clearly, if you have a problem with a 52-year-old man pretending to live his life as a six-year-old girl, YOU are the one in the wrong, you hateful, uh, trans-age-o-phobe, you.
Now I’m no Nostradamus, but I fully expect to see the pro-pedo movement grow exponentially over the next few years. It may take some time, but eventually, the media and entertainment industry will start trying to sneak the new sexual liberation Tao into their movies and nightly news stories. We’ll start hearing stories about children’s rights, and how they should have the personal autonomy to make major decisions – like, oh say, changing their pee pee into an artificial woo-woo – without any input from their parents (pending, of course, they’re backwards enough to not be OK with the idea of surgically castrating a second grader.) There will prolly be some big media brouhaha involving some elementary schooler who wants to change genders but his parents won’t let ’em and then the State will intervene on behalf of the kid and prolly take him out of the home and give him taxpayer subsidized gender reassignment surgery and it’ll prolly make it to a circuit court and a judge will magically come up with some decree saying kids have the same legal rights as adults when it comes to sexual identity and as the late, great Atlanta hip hop group Tag Team once prophesied, “whoomp, there it is.” Even now, perhaps the downplaying of #PizzaGate might be some sort of early attempt to get the masses to take child rape a little less seriously. The end game, of course, is to change the definition of child rape to focus on the mutuality of the sexual experience, which – with enough media indoctrination – may get some otherwise reasonable people to accept this notion that maybe, there’s nothing inherently bad about a 48 year-old man doing terribly, icky things to an eight-year-old, just as long as the eight-year-old says he or she is perfectly fine with it. You know, not that child predators have ever been known to trick their victims into thinking their abuse isn’t actually abuse or anything like that.
And that – more than race, more than abortion, more than guns, more than gays and certainly more than tranny-accessible toilets – might just be the moment our culture war stops being figurative and becomes a REAL, physical battle for the soul of the Republic. Middle America may not be too keen on dope-smoking pre-op drag queens packing each other’s fudge or hormone-addled lesbian Marxists getting married and qualifying for the exact same medical benefits as procreative Americans, and they sure as hell ain’t too keen on the idea of their tax dollars going towards sex change surgeries for convicted murderers. But as much as they philosophically hate it, they will tolerate it and keep their mouths shut whenever some dude in a wig pulls his ding-dong out in front of a nine-year-old at Target.
But that charade can’t last for long. Eventually, some mainstream celebrity or media publisher or politician is going to come out and publicly champion for pedophile rights. The entire liberal-progressivist armada will tell us to rally behind them, because their time to triumph as aggrieved, marginalized, and needlessly oppressed victims of that terrible, prejudiced “traditionalist” societal worldview has finally drawn nigh.
And then, I think about a story my perennially incarcerated uncle once told me. While serving time in the state pen for auto theft, he recounted the multitudes of human trash he called neighbors. Inner city gangbangers. White racist meth dealers. Serial wife beaters and child abandoners. Guys who raped and murdered, without any sort of long-lasting guilt. But as awful as these people may have been, they were united in something of a higher morality. While robbing banks and shooting at cops and strangling hookers was considered acceptable forms of human behavior, that wacky assortment of black nationalists and white separatists and Latino gangsters put aside their superficial differences and united against a common enemy: those short eyes who were in the slammer for sexual crimes against children. Even people who shot gas station attendants in cold blood knew that pedophiles were an altogether different kind of sick, people whose crimes were so inhumane and disgusting that they deserved to have the living shit beat out of them every single day, for the rest of their lives. And apparently, this was a higher morality the security guards subscribed to, as well, seeing as how they always conveniently looked the other way like a pro ‘rasslin ref every time the inmates swarmed Charlie the Nephew Toucher for another rousing game of “let’s see just how far we can get this here plunger in there this time?”
When even irredeemable criminal sociopaths realize something is hideously immoral, perhaps society as a whole should prick up their ears. It’s only a matter of time until very powerful people in this country start telling us to change our tunes on child molestation and rape – trying to tell us it’s not really child abuse and that we should accept those with pedo-tendencies as perfectly healthy, normal human beings – and there’s going to be a whole lot of people out there supporting them and threatening everybody else to go along with them because “it’s the progressive thing to do.”
They’ll expect mass society to just roll over on command and accept pedophilia as just another harmless lifestyle – essentially, the same way Middle America did on the issues of abortion, feminism, gay rights and the transgender movement, primarily out of fear of societal reprimand.
Some weak willed people will inevitably budge and convince themselves the idea of a 50-year-old sodomizing a middle schooler isn’t that bad. But the anti-pedophilia sentiment baked into our social norms – hell, it’s so firmly entrenched into our values, it might as well be considered evolutionarily hardwired into our DNA – goes well beyond the mere fear of cultural shame. When Jesuit priests, neo-Nazi speed dealers, African-American stick-up boys, roving Colombian death squads, the Insane Clown Posse and guys with mullets named Dennis who own more than three Iron Maiden tee shirts all agree that something is transcendentally immoral, then by Job, maybe that thing actually is transcendentally immoral.
A vocal, powerful minority may want the rest of U.S. culture to accept the notion that pedophiles are, by and large, good people. Alas, the rest of civilization has always seen – and, God willing, always will see – the equation a little bit differently. To them, there’s only one type of good pedophile … and that’s the one that hasn’t taken a breath in a long, LONG time.
One would think that a stance against pedophilia would be something we can all agree on, yet here we are. To those with only a cursory understanding of liberalism and liberal ideology, this is shocking. However, to those with an intimate understanding of liberal ideology, this is the next logical threshold when articulating the moral foundations of liberalism.
To understand the path of this logical progression, we must explore the work and thought of Jean Rousseau, the godfather and patron saint of liberalism. Rousseau believed that “man is a being who is naturally good … and the first movements of nature are always good.” Human beings are born naturally benevolent, and our natural goodness means man’s impulses and feelings are naturally just and correct, therefore making them moral to follow.
Rousseau believed that man lives in a fictitious utopian “state of nature,” which existed prior to civil society. In the state of nature, human beings lived independently; they lived free from the judgments of others; and we necessitated not favors, nor esteem, nor flattery from our neighbors.
Unfortunately, when a person selfishly acquired private property for himself, it caused society’s birth, which destroyed the utopian “state of nature” permanently. We are now forever dependent on others, forever subjected to the judgments of our neighbors, and forever faced with the need to garner esteem and flattery. As Arthur Melzer, a scholar of Rousseau, explained, “the dependency relationships formed in society, and the process of psychological corruption they produce, culminate in the other-directed self-seeker, who spends his life obsessed with others precisely because he cares only about himself.” Human beings pretend to be nice to others simply for their own personal gain. The only reason we are kind is to gain a utilitarian advantage from others, others we do not actually care about. The need to free oneself from the dependence and judgment of others and live freely is the thrust of what is known as the ethic of sincerity, or in this case, insincerity.
As David Gauthier, another Rousseau scholar, observed of Rousseau, “to depend on opinion is to depend on others for one’s sentiment of existence. It is to be alienated from oneself.” Gauthier quoted Rousseau’s moral angst: “I no longer found anything great … but to be free and virtuous, above fortune and opinion, and to suffice to oneself. Although the shame and fear of hisses kept me from behaving upon these principles at first.”
So long as Rousseau was under the tyranny of the esteem of others, he lived a beleaguered life. Rousseau felt a pressure from society to conceal his true nature and live life wearing a mask over his personality. He bemoaned the nature of this constraint in The first discourse (1750):
“One does not dare to appear as what one is. And in this perpetual constraint, men who make up this herd we call society, placed in the same circumstances, will all do the same things, unless more powerful motives prevent them. Thus, one will never know well the person one is dealing with.”
Rousseau is fearful of shame and negative opinions from others. He must therefore live the life of a phony, insincere person, perpetually stunted from being himself. To be oneself is the essence of a life sincerely lived.
Melzer identified Rousseau as the first person to canonize this philosophical premise, which defined “the good as being oneself regardless of what one may be” (p. 14). Simply be yourself, and “let go and stop trying. … I truly find myself when, rejecting all strenuous talk about my higher self, and liberated from shame and guilt, I just freely observe and sincerely acknowledge all that goes on within my soul.” Read Jill Locke’s description of Rousseau’s moral philosophy in Democracy and the death of shame: Political equality and social disturbance:
“He connected his misery to an unhealthy preoccupation with the impressions of others and the ease with which he could be made to feel ashamed. His narrative of self-loathing and longing to be free from the judgments of others who cast one as undesirable.”
Rousseau’s true goal in living authentically was escaping the judgment and shame others cast upon him. Being true to oneself means living a life without shame, free of guilt, removed from the opinions of others. For Rousseau, the authentic person is one who is not just free from shame and judgment, but has the opportunity to be whoever he chooses to be.
As the fear of shame is removed from our lives, our notion of what is good, beautiful, and true changes. For Rousseau, “morality itself requires of the individual only that he listen to his heart and yield effortlessly to its present command.” We only have to listen to our hearts because of our natural goodness. When Rousseau said, “The first movements of nature are always good,” he meant that one “acts only in accord with his impulses and reason.” The natural goodness of man means we are devoid of evil inclinations. This natural goodness makes all our actions benevolent, so long as we mean well. As Rousseau said, “I give myself to the impression of the moment without resistance and [even] without scruple; for I am perfectly sure that my heart loves only that which is good.”
Tying Rousseau’s natural goodness of man, his desire to live without shame, living free from the opinions of others, and his belief that a person must only look inside and be whatever it is he feels inside — however reprehensible it may be — to the modern issue of pedophilia should appear axiomatic. If human beings are naturally good, if they need to only look inside themselves and act on their impulses, which, again, are always moral, then they should.
If those impulses are those of pedophilia, it is logical, according to Rousseau and his acolytes, to act upon them. Society needs to refrain from judging the rapists and molesters of the world because that’s just who they are on the inside, and because of our natural goodness, all of their impulses are moral and worth following.
Read the disgusting and depraved 2009 article from NY Times writer Mary Eberstadt defending Pedophilia and trying to change history by stating that child rape had somehow “lost its cool” from some decades ago.
Check out this “community” on the surface web of “non-offending” and non-registered adults attracted to children. They claim they are trying to live normal lives and are simply no different than a homosexual..
If they wanted to live normal lives, they would seek psychiatric help and add their identities to public sex offender registries to protect their living communities, children, and themselves.
Another WordPress.com website by a online writer and pedophile that calls himself Enderphile attempts to normalize the acts of pedophilia, even going as far to consider himself a “victim” of society.. of course not the children who were raped and lives forever ruined in the name of LGBTQ+.
His real identity is currently being investigates but according to the website, his name is Ender Wiggin.
We’ve always known what the ‘plus’ actually stands for.
I submit that pedophilia is the final frontier, but then again, who knows? So long as the liberals believe morality consists in living authentically, looking within, and living a life without shame, the boundaries of socially acceptable behavior will move in directions and places our ancestors could have never imagined.
- FACT CHECK: Snopes Is a Joke - November 27, 2021
- Ghislaine Maxwell’s Trial Will Be One of the Greatest Events In Modern History - November 27, 2021
- Ashley Biden’s Diary and the “Secret Showers” With Her Father Confirmed as True - November 25, 2021